Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - SCJ

The moving defendants brought motions under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike claims for disclosing no cause of action.

The plaintiff, a real estate agent and social media content creator, alleged that she was defamed by two other real estate agents through social media posts.

She sued the brokers of record, branch managers, and brokerages for negligence and vicarious liability.

The court found that the negligence and vicarious liability claims were viable and disclosed reasonable prospects of success.

However, the court struck the claims for punitive damages on a theory of vicarious liability, as punitive damages cannot flow vicariously to an employer.

Leave was granted to amend the pleading to better plead aggravated and punitive damages against the individual defendants.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action to enforce a construction lien for unpaid invoices related to the installation of windows and doors at the defendants' home and detached garage.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, alleging the work was defective and incomplete.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the contractor had substantially completed the work and that the defendants fundamentally breached the contracts by refusing to pay the balance owing.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim, finding no negligence or misrepresentation, and awarded the plaintiff $31,579.01 on a quantum meruit basis.

The applicants brought an application seeking the removal of two locked gates installed by the respondents over a registered right of way used to access the applicants' cottage property.

The respondents had demanded proof of liability insurance and imposed conditions on the use of keys.

The court found that the installation of the locked gates constituted a substantial and practical interference with the applicants' use and enjoyment of the easement.

The court ordered the removal of the gates and awarded the applicants $10,000 in general damages for the loss of use and enjoyment of the right of way.

The defendant brought a motion to find the self-represented plaintiff in contempt.

The motion was adjourned because the defendant's counsel filed a 1300-page motion record without a compendium or hyperlinked authorities, violating the court's Notice to the Profession.

The Regional Senior Justice used the endorsement to provide a 12-point guide on effective written advocacy and proper filing practices for virtual hearings, emphasizing the 'less is more' principle.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction to remove protesters, including the named defendant Skyler Williams, from its property where it was constructing a residential subdivision.

The defendant argued that the common law test for injunctions was unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted Indigenous persons, and that the Crown had a duty to consult.

The court found that the defendant was not an authorized representative asserting collective s. 35 rights, and that the common law test for injunctions adequately balances Charter values.

Finding that the plaintiff held legal title and that damages would be inadequate for the ongoing trespass, the court granted the permanent injunction.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a pathologist for failing to diagnose appendiceal cancer from an appendectomy specimen in 2011.

The patient was later diagnosed with stage IV cancer in 2015 and died in 2016.

The court found that the pathologist breached the standard of care, as the cancer was obvious and should have been identified.

The court also found that but for the delayed diagnosis, the patient would likely have been cured with standard treatment.

The court awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the estate and family members.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action after the plaintiff, who was self-represented, failed to call any evidence during a ten-day judge-alone trial.

The plaintiff had repeatedly refused to participate in the trial following the denial of his third motion to adjourn.

The court dismissed the action under Rule 52.01(2)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the court's inherent jurisdiction to control its process and ensure fairness to all litigants, particularly when a party deliberately circumvents court orders and delays proceedings.

The applicants sought a declaration that they had fully repaid a commercial loan to the respondent and an order preventing the respondent from exercising its right to convert the debt into shares.

The applicants had attempted to repay the loan via a wire transfer to the personal account of the respondent's principal, as the respondent had refused to provide wire instructions and insisted on strict compliance with the loan agreement.

The court found that the applicants failed to repay the loan in accordance with the strict terms of the agreement.

Consequently, the applicants' application was dismissed, and the respondent's cross-application to enforce its conversion rights was granted.

The moving parties, subcontractors on a mining project, sought leave to intervene in an application brought by the project owners to set aside an arbitral award in favour of the general contractor.

The arbitral award included damages for the subcontractors' lost profits and standby charges.

The court dismissed the motion to intervene, finding that the subcontractors' financial interest in the outcome did not constitute a legal interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, which concerned the construction of the contracts between the owners and the general contractor.

The court also held that the subcontractors would not make a useful contribution to the issues on the application.

The plaintiff law firm brought a motion for an order excluding the public from the trial of its action against the defendant and prohibiting disclosure of information relating to the action.

The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction preventing the defendant from publishing allegedly defamatory statements.

The court dismissed the request for an in camera trial, finding it was not necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper administration of justice, as the allegations were already in the public domain.

Instead, the court ordered a limited publication ban directed at the defamatory statements and continued an existing sealing order.

Following a motion for interim support where the applicant was ordered to pay costs in the cause, the respondent Estate Trustee sought to vary the costs order based on a previously undisclosed offer to settle.

The court found the offer was more favourable to the applicant than the motion's outcome.

The court amended the costs order, directing that the $40,000 in partial indemnity costs be payable by the applicant in any event of the cause at the conclusion of the application.

The applicant invested in three commercial properties structured as trust arrangements with the respondents.

Following an Ontario Securities Commission investigation into the respondents for trading unregistered securities, the respondents were ordered to rectify deficiencies.

The respondents unilaterally terminated the applicant's investment agreements and purported to divest his units using a formula that did not provide fair market value, claiming this returned him to his pre-investment position.

The applicant sought relief for breach of contract and oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The court found that the respondents breached the agreements and acted oppressively by unfairly prejudicing the applicant's interests.

The court ordered the respondents to pay fair market value for the units as of the date the applicant stopped making payments, and established a valuation process.

Apotex brought an action against MDS (now Nordion) for breach of contract and negligence arising from bioequivalence studies conducted by MDS for Apotex's generic drug applications to the FDA.

The FDA refused to accept the studies due to MDS's failure to comply with U.S. regulatory requirements, forcing Apotex to repeat or certify the studies and delaying the launch of its drugs.

The court found MDS breached the Master Laboratory Services Agreement and its duty of care.

The court rejected MDS's defences regarding standing and the limitation period.

Apotex was awarded over $11.3 million in damages for the costs of repeating/certifying the studies and for lost profits due to the delayed market entry.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a binding agreement of purchase and sale was reached in September 2012 to divide four jointly-owned healthcare businesses.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for ancillary relief, including the removal of directors and the appointment of a receiver.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the parties had not agreed on all essential terms of the separation and that the draft agreement was subject to independent legal review which never occurred.

The court held that the ancillary relief sought by both parties was premature and should be resolved at trial.

The defendant MasterCard brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim in its entirety for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a footwear retailer, sued MasterCard and its payment processor after MasterCard imposed nearly $5 million in assessments following an alleged data breach.

The court dismissed the motion to strike the claims for intentional interference with contractual rights, unlawful interference with economic relations, negligence, unjust enrichment, conversion, and declaratory relief, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The court struck the claims for conspiracy (with leave to amend) and breach of the duty of good faith (without leave).

At a contested status hearing under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants sought dismissal of the plaintiff’s negligence action for delay.

The court applied the two‑part conjunctive test confirmed by the Court of Appeal requiring the plaintiff to show a reasonable explanation for the delay and absence of non‑compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Although the defendants conceded they would not suffer prejudice if the action proceeded, the plaintiff failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for extensive procedural delays, including failure to properly plead the claim, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and lengthy unexplained gaps in advancing the litigation.

The court emphasized that plaintiffs bear primary responsibility for moving actions forward and that persistent disregard of procedural timelines undermines the administration of justice.

As the plaintiff did not meet the required test, the action was dismissed.

Following a successful application compelling production of documents, the applicant sought costs including substantial indemnity costs from the date of a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that the offer contained an element of compromise and that the judgment obtained was more favourable than the offer, justifying substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court rejected arguments that senior counsel duplication and hourly rates were unreasonable, noting that outdated cost grid guidelines were unrealistic for complex commercial litigation.

Applying a methodology of awarding 60% of actual time for partial indemnity costs and 90% for substantial indemnity costs after the offer, the court found the claimed costs fair and reasonable.

Costs of $100,000 were ordered payable solely by the general partner respondent and not reimbursable by the limited partnership.

The defendants brought a motion seeking to enforce the plaintiff’s undertaking as to damages given in support of an ex parte Mareva injunction that froze their assets for nine days.

They argued that the injunction caused them to lose a commercial transaction and sought an inquiry to determine damages.

The court considered jurisprudence emphasizing the strong presumption that a party giving an undertaking as to damages should ordinarily be held to it unless special circumstances exist.

The court concluded that special circumstances were present, including the defendants’ conduct in the underlying litigation and the absence of persuasive evidence that the injunction caused compensable losses.

The motion to enforce the undertaking and order an inquiry into damages was dismissed.

A law firm brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking to have the respondent declared a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had repeatedly pursued meritless motions and appeals after her underlying action had been dismissed on summary judgment, despite multiple rulings from the Court of Appeal stating the appeal lacked merit.

She also failed to pay costs orders and continued filing extensive materials and additional motions attempting to reopen dismissed matters.

Applying the established factors for vexatious proceedings, the court found the respondent had persistently pursued proceedings without reasonable grounds and engaged in abusive litigation conduct.

The court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant and ordered that she obtain leave of the Superior Court of Justice before commencing or continuing any proceeding in Ontario.

The court considered a motion by a court-appointed receiver seeking approval of professional fees incurred during a complex receivership investigation.

The receivership arose after the judgment debtor engaged in extensive efforts to conceal assets through individuals and corporate entities in order to avoid enforcement of a judgment owed to a former spouse.

The receiver, counsel, and forensic investigator undertook substantial asset tracing and recovery efforts that resulted in over $2 million being realized for the estate.

The court found the professional fees reasonable and necessary given the complexity of the concealment and the extensive investigative work required.

The motion to approve the professional fees was granted.